Florida Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the case Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al.
The upcoming Supreme Court case is scheduled to be argued on February 8th. During oral argument, the court will be considering whether Colorado’s Supreme Court was correct in removing Trump from the Colorado ballot.
Colorado’s state supreme court relied on section three of the 14th Amendment to bar Trump.
Section three states that candidates can be withheld from running for office if they "have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.
According to the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump’s involvement with the January 6 riots can be characterized as “engaging in insurrection or rebellion.”
Scott’s brief argues otherwise, claiming enforcement of section three is left up to Congress, which has not produced any legislation enforcing the clause.
“The Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion tramples the prerogatives of members of Congress,” argue Scott and colleagues in the brief.
Scott filed the brief alongside Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and numerous members of the House of Representatives.
Prior to filing the brief, Scott likened the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to Communist dictators.
Scott criticized the "liberal activist judges in Colorado are following the same playbook as Maduro and Castro. Democrats’ gross attempts to silence or disenfranchise American voters will never stand."
Many legal scholars doubt the US Supreme Court will validate Colorado’s ban of Trump.
Heritage Foundation election law expert and former FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky explained “the text and history of the 14th Amendment, as well as court precedent,” do not support Trump’s disqualification.
The original group who filed the lawsuit against Trump was a group of registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters.
They claim Trump’s allegations of election fraud and his statements urging his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent certifying the 2020 election results, are sufficient grounds to merit banning him from running for office.
